What the Press Thinks About Neutrality

You can learn a lot about what "neutrality" might mean by reading some thoughtful articles in the national and local press.

Paul Kersey, writing for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy on February 13, 2007 says, "This inexorable decline in membership has led the union movement to seek changes to labor law, changes that have one thing in common: They make it easier for unions to win and hold on to the legal right to represent workers. Whether these changes would improve the lot of working Americans is another question. Union officials, understandably, assert that union membership is almost always a good deal, and that the failure of workers to choose to unionize can only be explained by flaws in labor law or by employer hostility to unions, or both. The possibility that the union movement’s decline is due to union practices, and that the best union reforms are internal not external, needs to be fully explored by unions or lawmakers."

Automotive writer Warren Brown wrote in the Washington Post on February 18, 2007: "Had the UAW understood and accepted the intrinsic nature of corporations, it and its members would not be in the position they're in today -- lamenting the decision of German-owned DaimlerChrysler to cut 13,000 jobs and shutter all or part of four Chrysler Group plants in North America over the next three years."

Jennifer Dixon, in the June 23, 2006 Detroit Free Press wrote  "Despite its dwindling ranks, the UAW appears to remain financially robust. But critics say the UAW's insistence on holding gatherings at golf and spa resorts, while so many members face job uncertainty, sends the wrong message to the rank and file."

Paul A. Eisenstein, on CarConnection.com, wrote "Is there still room for the United Auto Workers union?... There's no question the UAW has won tremendous gains for its members in the auto industry: great wages, good retirement packages, a platinum healthcare package. But the cost of these deals simply won't be borne by the customer anymore... The fact that workers at the various "transplants" keep rejecting union organizing bids cannot and should not be ignored... if the union had a positive story to sell, it's hard to imagine it would fail so utterly and completely."

Matthew Damon, in the October 13, 2005 Twin Cities Pioneer Press wrote "Labor claims, and research supports, that unions enjoy a higher rate of organizing success by soliciting signed authorization cards than by winning employees' votes in elections. But the implication that whatever makes union organizing easier is therefore desirable begs the bigger questions: Should we protect organized labor from its own marketplace, in which it has largely failed to inspire or retain its customers, and at what price to the employees they seek to represent?"

Rick Haglund, writing in the Ann Arbor News on February 20, 2005, says "Organized labor and the auto industry share a contentious, sometimes bloody history. But some say the two sides are now often getting a little too cozy, in possible violation of federal labor law. At issue is a controversial organizing tool called a neutrality agreement, which the United Auto Workers union is increasingly using to sign up thousands of new members working in auto supplier plants in Michigan and other states."

The Grand Rapids Press named labor unions one of the "Losers of 2003," saying "The UAW got snubbed by 550 employees at Magna Donnelly in Lowell. About 100 union workers at Wolverine World Wide went on strike in July, then accepted the same contract a few months later. Only 36 have gone back to work."

Mike Lozon, writing in the Holland Sentinel on December 12, 2003 says "The peaceful labor relations enjoyed by Holland-Zeeland companies and their employees could be jeopardized if a sneaky organizing effort by the United Auto Workers is successful... A win at JCI could lead to the decline of a major community asset -- the longstanding non-union environment... The use of the word "neutrality," in this instance, is a blatant misrepresentation because there is nothing neutral about such an agreement. As part of the agreement between the UAW and a company, the employer agrees not to interfere with organizing efforts. That leaves the employee without a fair and balanced perspective about the consequences of joining a union."

Julia Bauer, writing in the Grand Rapids Press on September 27, 2003 said "More than half of the 550 hourly workers at the Lowell exterior mirror plant turned down the UAW in the region's first taste of organizing-lite... Work at Magna Donnelly Lowell stopped for an hour Friday, including the shutdown of 24 massive presses in his department, for a 'captive-audience' meeting with one Magna official and two UAW representatives from Detroit. Each had 15 minutes to state his case... Jamie Wilson, a manufacturing engineer, couldn't vote or voice an opinion in the days before the election — he's a salaried employee. He said Magna workers resented the burden of union dues, set at two hours' wages per month... 'If they want to ever regain their power, they need to change,' he said."

An editorial in the Grand Rapids Press on June 19, 2003 said, "Neutrality in this instance might better be termed capitulation — a surrendering of the employees' right to an informed and free choice according to federal election rules... The missing element is choice. Labor relations law in the United States is founded on the right of employees to join a union or not to join. There simply isn't much choice when only one side is heard... In a day when this community is seeing more and more of its locally founded companies being bought out by corporations located elsewhere, how much more would be lost in having a greater share of the local workforce represented by a union run from Detroit?"

And Robert Hunter, also in the Grand Rapids Press on December 28, 2002 says, "The resolution of a recent labor dispute involving auto parts manufacturer Johnson Controls, based in Holland, poses great risks for our state's economy. By exposing thousands of workers to compulsory unionization practically overnight, this agreement's impact on West Michigan, and indeed on the state as a whole, could well prove monumental... Over time, more developments like those at Johnson Controls could make largely union-free and prosperous areas like West Michigan look more like union-dominated and depressed areas like Flint and Detroit... Union corporate campaigns and undemocratic, push-button labor deals run roughshod over the rights of employers and employees to fairly and freely make their own decisions about unionization. At the very least, workers should be able to vote by secret ballot for or against unionization of their workplaces."